Ariel Salleh

The ‘Green Economy’: Class Hegemony and Counter-Hegemony

The transnational capitalist class is using the global ecological crisis to revive its failing financial system. Whereas environmental degradation was once seen as imposing a limit on economic accumulation, in the new ‘green economy’, ecologism appears to become a rationale for extending market activity. The intensification of neoliberal extraction, and corresponding social and environmental debt, meets resistance from the global justice movement whose articulation of a counter position is increasingly sophisticated. This article examines this dialectic as played out at the UN Rio + 20 Summit and parallel Peoples Summit in June 2012. The hegemonic ‘green economy’ formulation of corporations, multilateral agencies, unions, and big NGOs is contained in a document known as The Future We Want. A counter-hegemonic document entitled Another Future is Possible, facilitated by the World Social Forum, spells out an alternative route to global justice and environmental sustainability—a ‘bio-civilisation’. In neo-Gramscian terms, a war of position is occurring between two ‘transnational historic blocs around divergent social visions (Carroll, 2007, p. 36). La clase capitalista trasnacional está usando a la crisis ecológica global para revivir su defectuoso sistema financiero. Mientras que la degradación del medio ambiente, se veía como un límite impositivo a la acumulación económica, en la nueva ‘economía verde’, el ecologismo parece que se ha vuelto un raciocinio para extender la actividad del mercado. La intensificación de la extracción neoliberal y la correspondiente deuda social y del medio ambiente, encuentra resistencia por parte del movimiento de justicia global, cuya expresión de una contraposición es cada vez más sofisticada. El artículo examina esta dialéctica como se interpretó en la Cumbre Rio+20 y paralelamente, la Cumbre de los Pueblos, en junio de 2012. La formulación hegemónica de la ‘economía verde’ de las corporaciones, agencias multilaterales, sindicatos y grandes ONG, está contenida en un documento conocido como El futuro que queremos. Un documento hegemónico contrario se titula Es posible otro futuro, facilitado por el Foro social mundial, explica una ruta alternativa hacia la justicia social y la sostenibilidad del medio ambiente—una ‘bio-civilización’. En términos gramscianos, una guerra de posición está ocurriendo entre dos ‘bloques históricos transnacionales alrededor de visiones sociales divergentes’ (Carroll, 2007, p 36) 跨国资本主义阶级正在使用全球的生态危机复活其失败中的金融体系。环境恶化被认为限制了经济积累，不过，在新的“绿色经济”中，生态主义却成为扩大市场活动的理由。新自由主义压榨的加强，以及相应的社会与环境债务，引起全球正义运动的抵制，全球正义运动反对的理由日益精深。本文检讨2012年6月联合国Rio+20 峰会和其平行的人民的峰会 上展示的辩证法。大公司、多边机构、工会和大的非政府组织等的霸权性的“绿色经济”公式写在所为⟪我们想要的未来⟫的文件中。一份反霸权的题为⟪另一种未来⟫是可能的，这份文件由世界社会论坛提出，规划了一条走向全球正义和环境可持续性的替代性路线—一个“生物-文明”。在新葛兰西主义的意义上，介于两大“跨国历史集团、围绕分歧性的社会前景”的立场战争正在发生(Carroll, 2007, p. 36)。 초국적 자본가들은 실패한 금융시스템을 부활시키기 위하여 지구적 생태 위기를 이용한다. 환경악화가 경제적 축적에 한계를 가져올 것으로 여겨졌지만, 새로운 ‘녹색 경제’에서 생태주의는 시장 능력을 연장시키는 이유가 되고 있다. 신자유주의적 채취의 강화와 그에 따른 사회적, 환경적 부채가 지구적 정의 운동으로부터의 저항을 받고 있다. 지구적 저항 운동의 대항 위치가 점차 더 복잡해지고 있기도 하다. 이 글은 2012년 6월 UN리오+20 정상회의에서 그리고 이에 대항해서 동시에 열린 피플 정상회의에서 진행된 변증법을 검토한다. 기업, 다자대표들, 노조와 거대 NGO의 헤게모니적 ‘녹색 경제’는 로 알려진 자료에 포함되었다. 세계 사회포럼이 만든 라는 대안적인 자료는 지구적 정의와 환경적 지속성 즉 ‘바이오-문명’에 이르는 대안적인 길을 제시하고 있다. 네오 그림시적인 용어로 서로 다른 사회적 비전을 둘러싸고 초국적 역사적 불럭들 간 지구전이 일어나고 있다 (Carroll, 2007, p.36). Транснациональный капиталистический класс использует глобальный экологический кризис для восстановления своей провальной финансовой системы. Если когда-то деградация окружающей среды рассматривалась как повод для наложения ограничений на экономическое накопление, то новая «зеленая экономика», экологизм, кажется, становится обоснованием для расширения рыночной активности. Интенсификация неолиберального отбора и соответствующий ему социальный и экологический долг, встречают сопротивление со стороны глобального движения за справедливость, чья формулировка своей встречной позиции становится все более сложной. В статье рассматривается, как эта диалектика разыгрывается на высшем уровне в ООН Рио и Саммите 20 и найдите что-либо подобное Народному Саммиту в июне 2012. Главная формулировка “экологически ориентированной экономики” корпораций, многосторонних агентств, союзов и крупных НПО содержится в документе, известном как Будущее, которое Мы Хотим. Противоположный документ под названием Другое Будущее Возможно, при содействии Всемирного социального форума, излагает альтернативный маршрут к глобальной справедливости и экологической устойчивости - “биоцивилизация”. В неогрэмшианских терминах позиционная война происходит между двумя “транснациональными историческими блоками вокруг расходящихся социальных видений” (Кэрролл, 2007, с. 36).

From Metabolic Rift to “Metabolic Value”: Reflections on Environmental Sociology and the Alternative Globalization Movement

On the assumption that good theory is informed by praxis and vice versa, the essay brings sociological theory together with the alternative globalization movement. The responses of this emerging global civil society to contemporary environmental crises indicate that understandings of labor and value that evolved with industrial capital need to be broadened. The essay opens up this process with an outline of how capitalist production undermines its own social metabolism, a “metabolic rift,” that is maintained by the ideological separation of ecology and economics. However, from a grassroots perspective, it is clear that a conceptual vacuum exists between these two disciplines—a space in which a third discourse waits to be articulated. This subliminal “other” sphere of labor and value centers on reproduction of the humanity—nature metabolism by those whose labor is marginalized by capital—unpaid caregivers, peasants, and indigenous gatherers. The terms meta-industrial labor and metabolic value spell out the material, rift-healing, contribution of this unnamed international class. The essay seeks recognition for a vernacular science, an integrated movement strategy, and more inclusive social theory.

Moving to an embodied materialism

A new initiative by Capitalism Nature Socialism aims to help ecosocialists and ecofeminists find a common political language. Since CNS is dedicated to social equity in the context of sustainability, not just any feminism will do. So a first step has been to gather together a group of ecofeminist editors, people who are both activists and internationally published authors in the field. They in turn, are inviting activist women, and members of organizations like EcoPolitics, the National Women’s Studies Association, the Global Studies Association, and the International Association for Feminist Economics, to participate in en/gendering the journal’s ecosocialist pages. The goal is to ensure that each issue carries at least one ecofeminist article—usually by a woman, though not necessarily so. There are openings for an ecofeminist special issue, for opinion columns, and for accounts of women’s grassroots campaigns. The 2005 CNSAnniversary Conference at York University, Toronto, will feature German ecofeminist Maria Mies, author of Patriarchy and Accumulation, alongside the ecosocialist voice of James O’Connor, founding CNS editor.

The Anthropocene: Thinking in “Deep Geological Time” or Deep Libidinal Time?

ABSTRACT This essay offers a socialist feminist postcolonial interpretation of the Anthropocene concept as used in recent ecocriticism. In contesting the rigid positioning of Humanity over Nature, the paper draws on the Marxist psychoanalytic theory of non-identity in Theodor Adorno (1973) and Julia Kristeva (1973, 1977, 1978). Making an ecofeminist contribution to the new field of environmental humanities, it engages critically with the perspective of prominent US scholar Timothy Morton (2012). Its embodied materialist argument is that contemporary Eurocentric institutions, science, and philosophies are indeed shaped by affect as Morton believes, but not in the way that he envisages. In addition, it is suggested that the socialist feminist postcolonial politics of ecofeminism is already challenging the inevitable universality of the Anthropocene by building an Earth Democracy with epistemologies of care. It is concluded that understanding the Anthropocene notion, a phenomenon that is profoundly gendered, requires more than thinking in “deep geological time.” Ultimately, all ecological awareness will demand a capacity for thinking in “deep libidinal time.”

Climate, Water, and Livelihood Skills: A Post-Development Reading of the SDGs

The 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and 169 targets launched by the United Nations (UN) and heads of state in late September 2015, are described as a universal plan of action for ‘people, planet, and prosperity’ to take effect over the next 15 years. The intention behind the SDGs is to protect the Earth from further degradation including climate change and manage natural resources for sustainable production, in order to support the needs of present and future generations. There is no doubt that the state of the world is dire. The UN Sustainable Development Knowledge Platform, Transforming our world, names disparities of power, wealth, and opportunity; gender and youth discrimination; military conflict, terrorism, health threats, and refugees; resource depletion, desertification, water scarcity, and biodiversity loss (2015). The SDGs aim to end poverty by 2030. In line with the UN Charter and Universal Declaration of Human Rights, equality and the empowerment of women, children, the disabled, migrants, and least developed nations are emphasised. The UN SDGs build on an earlier set of Millennium Development Goals. However, these were unsuccessful, leading veteran Caribbean activist Peggy Antrobus to dismiss the acronym MDG as ‘Most Distracting Gimmick’ (Antrobus, 2009, p. 164). The SDGs now broaden the MDGs by attempting to integrate ‘the three pillars of sustainable development—economic, social, and environment’. Yet already, this statement reveals tendencies that compromise the UN programme. The term ‘sustainable development’ is widely considered an oxymoron these days. Moreover, conventional wisdom and academic disciplines falsely treat the economy as separate from society, or falsely treat the economy and society as separate from ecology. This silo thinking is unhelpful to social change. Ecological feminists point out that silo thinking stems from the old humanity/nature dualism, central dogma of the eurocentric cultural domination that now spreads across the globe under capitalism (Salleh, 1997). The Marxist analysis does not reach as deeply as ecofeminism, but it does see capitalism as an inherently contradictory system of production. The first contradiction shows up in the tension between economy and society (O’Connor, 1998). Thus, the famous

Ecosocialism, Gendered Imaginaries, and the Informatic-Securitization Complex

It is a pleasure to be asked to reflect back on the first 25 years of Capitalism Nature Socialism. To my memory, the idea for the journal was conceived in Santa Cruz one morning in March 1986, during a coffee shop conversation between myself, Jim O’Connor, and two of his UCSC grad students—Dan Faber and Sharon Helsal. I had met Sharon during the First International Conference on Ecofeminist Perspectives at the University of Southern California after doing a Green Politics panel with Charlene Spretnak and Lilo Wolny from Die Grünen im Bundestag. Helsal insisted I drive back to Santa Cruz with her and meet Jim. As a founding member of The Greens (reg. party), Sydney 1985, and editor with the critical theory journal Thesis Eleven, I was dismayed by the reluctance of Marxists to take hold of environmental questions. “What we need, Jim,” I said, “is a journal that synthesizes both politics—and together with feminism.” A year or so later, a call for editorial interest was in the mail from California. I came on board, recommending that Les Levidow from England, Australian colleagues Stuart Rosewarne and Jim Falk, and Martin O’Connor from New Zealand, be invited to join as well.

Towards an Inclusive Solidarity on the Left: Editor's Introduction

Over the years, CNS has published a number of ecofeminist pieces, although it should be noted that articles on women as ‘‘objects’’ of injustice and environmental degradation using a mainstream liberal, feminist, or Marxist frame are not necessarily ecofeminist in conception. Ecofeminists speak as ‘‘subjects’’ creating a ‘‘political discourse’’ meaningful to the experience of being ‘‘resourced as nature’’ under capitalist patriarchal economic practices. Ecofeminism is womanist rather than feminist; it is a global movement centered on locality and life needs. Such a politics

On Production and Reproduction, Identity and Nonidentity in Ecofeminist Theory

MH: Our dialogue began last June, following my review of Ecofeminism as Politics in the newsletter published by the Standing Group on Green Politics in the European Consortium for Political Research (Hanson, 1998). At the time, I had a basic knowledge of issues raised by ecofeminist writers but was new to a materialist ecofeminist analysis. While as a feminist I agreed with much of Salleh’s critique of capitalist and patriarchal systems, as someone interested in Green political theory I remained doubtful as to whether what she calls a ‘womanist’ approach was anything more than a reconstruction of socialism. My skepticism was also directed at Salleh’s use of ‘nonidentity’as a source of ecofeminist theory and linkages with postcolonial struggle by means of her ‘barefoot epistemology.’ I was bothered by what seemed like a reduction of women’s experience in the attempt to universalise connections between women’s biological embodiment, reproductive work, and how these are ecologically embedded. Ariel responded to my review, providing some answers and raising more questions with me. Our e-mail discussion ran over several months, and the following is an attempt to relay that exchange to a wider group of readers. In doing this, we are grateful to O&E reviewers for suggesting how we might amplify and document the dialogue.

Eco-socialism and “Ecological Civilization” in China

On the weekend of May 16-18, 2008, Shandong University in Jinan, the capital of the province just south of Beijing, hosted an International Conference on Environmental Politics. The university is one of the oldest in modern China and has three lush, green city campuses. The dynamo behind the event was Professor Qingzhi Huan, with strong support from university president, Prof. Tao Zhan, and an enthusiastic postgrad team. It opened with formalities from Prof. Mouchang Yu of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, Quanxin Zhang, Vice-Director of the Shandong Committee of the Communist Party of China (CPC), and Yaoxian Wang, former Director of the Ministry of Environmental Protection. Speakers from far afield included Indian-born activist Saral Sarkar from Cologne*author of Eco-socialism or Eco-capitalism?; political philosopher John Barry from Queens University, Belfast; environmental sociologists, Seajae Lee, Jaemook Park, and Do-Wan Ku from Korea; Masatsugu Maruyama from Japan; and myself from the University of Sydney.

Embodying the Deepest Contradiction: A Rejoinder to Alan Rudy

Materialist ecofeminist studies of the international division of labor will be invaluable in this respect; in particular, Maria Mies’ concept of housewifization of the male workforce under neoliberalism; Vandana Shiva’s empirical data on agribusiness enclosures and their cost to communal viability in the South; and Silvia Federici’s analysis of transcontinental migration, sex tourism, and reproductive surrogacy. These economic questions are central to our political work, though in another sense, they are mere manifestations of a deeper set of relations embodied in exchanges between*historically constructed*women and men. Ecofeminists contend that there will be no end to capitalism and its ecological crisis until the patriarchal component of that oppressive system is dealt with. Moreover, while old socialist feminist debates over how patriarchal and capitalist systems are interrelated still have much to offer, these are overtaken by the ecofeminist introduction of a new element, ‘‘nature’’ so called.